Saturday, 19 May 2012

Mini Opera submission - brief commentary

I admit I haven't spent a huge amount of time on this, but I got married during the competition period so I've been busy! It isn't very polished, but I'm submitting it anyway as I've run out of time.

I went for blank dialogue; it suited the material better. I imagine it being set quite sparsely, like say Turn of the Screw. The direction I took with the given subject matter is probably not what the judges will expect!  This may not be a bad thing, though I can't imagine it will get any further in the contest. I hope it doesn't come across as axe-grindy, but I fear I haven't captured the Sweeper's pro-woo point of view very well. Ach well.

ENO Mini Operas submission

Enough Questions




AN INNER-CITY STREET AT DAWN. THE  DOORS OF SEVERAL TERRACED HOUSES, BESIDE EACH OF WHICH IS A SMALL PLAQUE BEARING A BROOM ICON. THE SWEEPER, GREY-BEARDED AND WEARING A SHABBY LONG COAT, IS LEANING ON A LONG WOODEN BROOM WITH NO BRISTLES. THE APPRENTICE, A YOUNG WOMAN IN JEANS AND A JACKET OVER A GEEK-BRANDED T-SHIRT, IS RECITING A LITANY,  PROMPTED BY THE SWEEPER.

APPRENTICE: At the birth of the day, I am there, sweeping away the glowing embers of dreams, freeing my patients from the malignancy. I bring them hope. I am the Sweeper of Dreams.

APPRENTICE: Who taught you the litany?

SWEEPER: Nobody knew him.

APPRENTICE: Right now nobody knows you.

SWEEPER: A sweeper lives in the shadows.

APPRENTICE: I don't. My blog gets 1,000 hits every week.

SWEEPER: Your what?

APPRENTICE: Number 15 have bought the sign. (GESTURES TO THE SIGN BY THE FIRST DOOR)

SWEEPER: They've had it 40 years. I will sweep them, watch closely. (RECITING) At the birth of the day, I am there.

THE SWEEPER MAKES A PRECISE SERIES OF SWEEPING MOTIONS WITH HIS BROOM, FIRST  ON THE DOOR-MAT, AND THEN THE DOOR ITSELF, TOUCHING NEITHER. THE APPRENTICE SURREPTITIOUSLY PHOTOGRAPHS HIM WITH HER PHONE. FINISHED, HE MAKES A NOTE IN A DOG-EARED NOTEBOOK.

APPRENTICE: Are you family proud of you?

SWEEPER: The street is my family, this broom my wife, the years our children. Enough questions, I have a job to do.

APPRENTICE: Tell me why you sweep.

SWEEPER: To free people from malignancy. When you have it, nothing goes right. Your health, your friends, your job, your money.

APPRENTICE: Like bad luck?

SWEEPER: Luck is superstitious nonsense. The malignancy is real, looking for a way in, every night. Enough questions! Take this (HE OFFERS HER THE BROOM, RELUCTANTLY), make yourself useful.

APPRENTICE: (RECITING) I sweep away the glowing embers of dreams.

THE APPRENTICE SWEEPS THE SECOND DOOR INEXPERTLY, ADDING PARODIC FLOURISHES OF HER OWN. SHE PHOTOGRAPHS THE BROOM AND THE DOOR WHILE THE SWEEPER MAKES ANOTHER NOTE IN HIS NOTEBOOK.

APPRENTICE: What do you write down?

SWEEPER: How my patients are. Sometimes they get the malignancy too; that's when they most want my help.

APPRENTICE: Why do so many people pay you if sweeping won't prevent malignancy?

SWEEPER: I make them feel better.

APPRENTICE: Do you know about regression to the mean?

SWEEPER: Enough questions! I know about people. They want my help, they need my help.

APPRENTICE: I know about people too. If they believe you're sweeping they'll feel better, even if you do nothing.

SWEEPER: Don't you care about people? Why are you even here?

APPRENTICE: Of course I care, but people are amazing enough without your rain dance.

SWEEPER: It's raining.

APPRENTICE: It must be wonderful to be certain like you. So warm, so soft, so comfortable. I will never feel it. There are no certainties, only science. That's what my blog is about. Sweeping has been proven a hollow sham. I wanted to see it for real, here on the street, and tell people what it's really like.

SWEEPER: Damn you all, poking your noses in! This is my life's work, I've helped thousands of people, and you insult me like this. Keep your proof! If you had an open mind maybe you'd have learned something.

APPRENTICE: I have, and I have. Enough questions.

THE APPRENTICE HANDS BACK THE BROOM, TAKES ONE LAST PHOTO OF THE SWEEPER, AND LEAVES. HE DISMISSES HER WITH A WAVE, AND SETS ABOUT SWEEPING THE THIRD DOOR.

Sunday, 1 April 2012

Mini Operas

ENO are running a Mini Operas competition. I intend to submit an entry, not with any genuine expectation of winning, but purely because I find very short operas to be an interesting form (I have a 15-minuter in my trunk). It'll be nice to have a short project - I intend to post every stage of the process onto this meagre blog.

Of the three choices of source material, I'm opting for The Sweeper of Dreams. It is unlike the sort of things I tend to write about. There is also a lot of scope to expand upon the intriguing snapshot that we are given, all of which I'm choosing to use.

One question the material doesn't answer is whether this sweeper attends to the entire population through some Santa-style magic, whether only those people he can reach benefit from his work, whether there are other sweepers everywhere, and whether there is some co-operation or organisation. It also treats its central conceit as being unquestionably true, yet we know it is fantasy - there is mileage here in leaving its efficacy unproven and open to question.

At the very least, to be able to exposit the scenario to the audience requires either the single character to address the audience directly, to have some other contrivance for talking to himself, or another character to talk to. I favour the latter. This leads quickly to the admittedly-tired trope of a master/apprentice relationship, which makes it easy to tell the audience what's going on without needing any Your-Father-The-King contrivances; it also sets out with no further effort the idea of some organisation surrounding the sweepers.

SWEEPER (further to source material)
A life-long loner who takes on apprentices only when forced to. Opinionated on any subject. Misogynist. Unshakeable belief in the efficacy of his work, based on decades of anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless wearily losing interest in his patients.

APPRENTICE
A young woman, dressed in jeans and a geeky t-shirt. Given to asking questions, without always considering the answers carefully - primary concern is having something to write about for her daily blog. Takes Instagram photos assiduously. Wants to see everything for herself and tell others about it. Didn't know much about sweeping, but needed a job. When ready, will take over sweeping for her local area next to Sweeper's patch.

The central tension will be whether Sweeping, trusted by its practitioners and a good portion of the population, does any good, or whether it is a fallacy. This will be left ambiguous, but the Apprentice's rather imperfect questions provoke imperfect defences from the Sweeper. Thus it will reflect the real-world tension between sceptics and e.g. aromatherapists. There's scope for a little discussion of gender-prejudice, and a cynical sick-in-the-mud like the Sweeper has plenty of prejudices to examine.

As for the style of the writing, I'm still undecided. I'll write a basic script of ordinary dialogue, and go from there. It's possible that I'll leave it at that, or I may then set it into proper verse.

OK, we have a setting, the characters, and the theme. The next thing to add is some words…

Saturday, 17 March 2012

The Novelty Wears Off

Last year I looked at some songs of the Divine Comedy in more detail than you might want. Now I'm going to do the same to songs you don't even want to think about: Novelty Songs.

Yep. Accepting that they are all awful in a variety of awful ways, we come to an interesting question: is there merit underneath all those strata of awfulness? Is there evidence of craftsmen, unenviably tasked with writing an awful song, making an effort to produce something that didn't offend their professional pride?

I have a personal reason to believe that this is sometimes so, which I'll share later (see? Setting up tension to strengthen the later resolution. That's craftsmanship right there.), but let's dive into some places you never wanted to revisit, and see what we find.

THE IRRETRIEVABLY AWFUL

Can We Fix It? - Bob The Builder (2000, UK #1)


Firstly, allowances must be made that this is an adaptation of a 1-minute TV theme song, with lyrics probably written by the writers and not a professional song-writer ('Pilchard and Bi-ird, Travis and Spud/Playing together like good friends should' being a) witless pish; b) half the length of the previous verse). Likewise the fact than Neil Morrissey has been pitch-bent to the point of cyborghood. The single is no more than the hook, plus padding, padding, padding.

Verdict: Tossed off in five minutes. At most.


The Fast Food Song - Fast Food Rockers (2002, UK #2)


This is a 2-line playground rhyme blown out of all proportion. By 27s they've run out of material, and verses like 'You like it, you love it, you know you really want it/ The voices I he-ar whenever you're around/ I want it, I need it, - nothing else can beat it, - Hotter, - spicy, whenever I'm in town' make Agadoo sound like Cicero. I pity the poor sods in the video.

Verdict: MY EYES!


Baby Got Back - Sir Mixalot (1992 US #1)


This charming paean adopts a rhapsodic construction, boldly stating its central premise and then inventively meandering around a labyrinthine path of ingenious variations upon it. Or, to put it bluntly, it's a structureless rant about fat arses. (On a side, or possibly rear, note, Jonathan Coulton pwned the song with his ballad cover.)

Verdict: Get thy behind, my Satan.


THE MEDIOCRE

Because I Got High - Afroman (2001, UK #1)


This is a conventional list song. The AABC rhyming structure adequately conveys the idea of a man with some ability (the halfway-inventive AAs) being squandered by being a stoner (the jarring BC non-rhymes). Content Dictates Form. The list escalates to progressively worse occurrences - competently - with the sad exception of his becoming paraplegic in the middle of the song, which rather diminishes the effect of his subsequently-unfulfilled promises to lick pussy. Should have left that injury until last.

Verdict: Spoiled by a structural blunder.

Barbie Girl - Aqua (1997, UK #1)


The underlying problem with this is that it takes the 'blonde bimbo girl' at face value. There is no tension or character development there, pretty much by definition, and therefore the song goes nowhere. It's fun kitsch, but the songwriter could have done a lot by giving us a glimmer of Barbie wishing to be more than she is. An opportunity missed.

Verdict: The set designer had a blast.

The Chicken Song - Spitting Image (1986, UK #1)


This is really an anti-novelty song, embarrassed to be classified with that which it so savagely parodies. Written by Red Dwarf's Grant & Naylor, one of whose subsequent scribblings I happily hacked to pieces, it quite deliberately makes no sense at all.

Verdict: Not as good as the outrageously offensive B-side. Fully.

THE SURPRISINGLY GOOD

Do The Bartman - The Simpsons (1991, UK #1)


Co-written secretly by a Michael Jackson at the height of his powers. The verses are bland, mere snapshots of Bart's well-trodden existence, but the hook is a good one. Unlike most novelty songs, this is actually a genuine middle-of-the-road pop song from its era.

Verdict: Barring its subject matter, not novel at all.

Mr Blobby - Mr Blobby (1993, UK #1)


There is craftsmanship here, at least in the two verses. Firstly 'as far as he can see/ he's the same as you and me' deftly gives insight into a hitherto unsuspected depth to his character - it hadn't previously occurred to ponder Mr Blobby's self-image, and of course he'd believe himself to be normal. It's a pleasant surprise so see the songwriter bother to give the ridiculous Blobby a realistic human trait. Secondly 'Although he's unconventional in hue/ his philosophy of life will see him through/ and despite the limitation/ of his poor co-ordination…' is a nice way of setting down, err, what Blobby does best. The director of the video has obviously had a lot of fun (the clichéd novelty crowd-surf works a lot better than Bob The Builder's did), and we here at the Wordplay Guild know well-executed slapstick when we see it. Look out for Jeremy Clarkson and the odious Vorderman.

Verdict: Yes, it's awful, but it's also quite good. (Also, WTF were the spandex-dancers at the beginning for?)

Two Little Boys - Rolf Harris (1969, UK #1)


Cards on table, the craftsman here is the arranger, who is my grandfather (he's also here at 1:20, as MD of Name That Tune). He doesn't talk about this piece of work because I think he's a bit embarrassed by it (having two sons probably adds to this), but it was a quick job that was never expected to get where it did. The song itself is charming, and much older.

Verdict: This song makes me cry. Sorry, but it does.



Anyway, the point I would like to make is this: strip away the veneer of novelty, and is there anything left? Picture yourself as a jobbing songwriter - what would you do if you'd had to write it? Would you churn out some witless, meaningless padding, or would you write a competent song that stands up in its own right, and maybe adds something to its subject matter?

I know what I'd rather do.

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Man-Fiction

I have a confession. A portion of my reading diet comprises what I dub 'Man-Fiction'. A Man-Fiction book will: be heavily plot-driven; be vast in scope; involve people either in or aspiring to high office; rely heavily on battle and/or intrigue; have little or no character development in its expansive cast; be subject to accusations of misogyny; have bland prose driving on its sprawling plot. Done well, Man-Fiction is tremendously entertaining to read, even though probing examinations of the human soul may be subordinated to weapon statistics.

This post is a response to mockery I have read, and received personally, of such works. As such, all books of this nature are often assumed to be artless, worthless genre-fiction churned out by third-rate authors for a quick buck. I don't deny that this is often the case, and don't presume to defend it all. Equally, it doesn't all deserve to be tarred by the same brush.

Before refuting that, though, let us state that there is nothing wrong with reading artless genre fiction, and not dieting solely on what Jeeves called 'improving books'. What a reader chooses to enjoy between the covers is his own business, improving or not. I try to eat 'improving' food, but I'm not above the odd guilty pleasure, though like any self-respecting foodie I at least stick to good-quality treats where possible. Likewise, better good Man-Fiction than bad.

As for misogyny, my term of 'Man-Fiction' stereotypes its readers as being men, or at least male. In my experience this is overwhelmingly the case, but this is descriptive rather than proscriptive. Provided people don't look down on people because of their choice of anatomy, it's fine for men and women to want to do whatever they like; perhaps they will tend to like and to do different things, and that's fine. Man-Fiction itself is criticised for its abundance of male characters, and either paucity or ill-treatment of its female characters. Given that it's almost invariably set either in history or in the military (often both), this is hardly surprising, and generally realistic. It seems churlish to expect that the gender values of some modern societies should be grafted anachronistically into historical settings, however one may agree with those values - some reviewers appear to disagree.

Anyway, back to art. Not all Man-Fiction is artless, and if you dismiss as worthless anything with bland prose, thin characters, and expansive plot, then you get in trouble.

Der Ring Des Nibelugen.

I don't suggest a gender imbalance in its appreciation, but it certainly fulfils the above criteria for Man-Fiction. It's not above criticism, but describing it convincingly as 'not art' is going to require some powerful arguments. Sure, there's an appealing profusion of phenomenal music and musicianship in the Ring, but separate that from the libretto and you miss the whole point of Wagner's drama. The Ring is art, and it is Man-Fiction, therefore some Man-Fiction is art, therefore not all of it is worthless.

By all means mock Tolkien, or Robert Harris, or even George R.R. Martin if it's not your thing, but don't dismiss it as being devoid of merit. I for one regard a well-constructed, intricate, and epic plot to be an art in itself. I'll happily tear apart literary fiction for shallow characters or lifeless prose, but if prose and characters are your currency then you must spend them wisely. Man-Fiction trades on other assets.

I'm off to indulge in a little fantasy - not in the sense of goblins and dragons, but in the sense of dreaming. Dreaming of times and places where men fight for themselves and for what they believe in, and have the chance to be honourable, valourous, chivalrous, gallant, heroic. Virtues indeed. In my life I aspire to these things in my own small way, but it cannot be denied that a software engineer has fewer chances for valour than a knight, or an SAS trooper - and in this fiction, art or not, the basic urge for such virtues gains what vicarious satisfaction it can hope for. Is that so wrong?

Saturday, 23 July 2011

Merrily We Roll Along

This post is partly by way of fleshing out some thoughts which are directly relevant to my book, but mostly as Dear Diary Catharsis.

It's now ten years since I committed myself to learning to make music. Not unusual in itself, but combine the fact that I started from scratch as an adult, and that I've actually managed to reach a competent standard (on which more later), and we at least arrive at a topic worthy of a blog post - How Did You Get Here From There, Mr Shepard? (Sondheim)

Briefly, I didn't have any significant musical tuition as a child, barring a couple of abortive attempts lasting a month or two: violin at age 7, drums at 11. Both ended for trivial reasons, which a simple kick up the backside (surely every child needs this?) would have overcome. There was a grand piano in the house, which was left unlearned. What a dreadful, dreadful pity. To avoid earning a #middleclassangst tag, happier times came at age 17. We attended the county youth orchestra playing Holst's The Planets, in which my friend was principal trombone. This left an indelible impression! This was Stage I: I Wish I'd Learned An Instrument.

Many people get to this stage.

I splurged my savings on a beginner trumpet. The excited, my-precious-stroking of the car journey home was followed immediately by a deep nadir which was to serve as a pattern for the years to come. Left in the cellar of an empty house, my few timid, muted notes sounded so awful that I couldn't bear the neighbours being able to hear them, so I cried, and put the instrument away again after only a few minutes. Stage II: Timid And Total Shit.

A few months of self-taught practice, and some Andrew Lloyd-Webber songbooks (my musical taste has progressed since then too!) brought me to Stage III: Confident And Shit. I didn't mind people hearing me, and lived in blissful ignorance of how terrible I was - though I at least realised that I was fighting the instrument rather than playing it. A trip to John Packer killed my interest with one note - even with my bloody-awful embouchure an experiment with a trombone was a hundred times easier and more satisfying to play. The trumpet then gathered dust. Stage IV: Got Nowhere And Gave Up.

I think this is where the story ends for most adult beginners.

Repeat the process for clarinet, and again for trombone, and we reach the point ten years ago, when I was 20. I desperately wanted to be able to play, and I knew I'd had the wrong approach, and that it was worth only one more go. I dusted off my trombone (Bach 300), booked a lesson, and promised myself that I would make it work this time. Stage V: Determined But Still Shit.

Early progress was rapid, but required a bucketful of determination. Most beginner music material is aimed at children, for obvious reasons. I hated hated hated playing Merrily We Roll Along (on the deep blue sea...) the fifty times it took to master. Throw in the gut-wrenching embarrassment I felt at people hearing my practice, and the burgeoning knowledge and self-loathing of my own incompetence, and we have a very steep hill to climb. Others may find this stage easy, but for me (personality summary: whore for people's respect) it was the hardest thing I've ever done. I persevered. Fast-forward a few months, and I joined the university wind orchestra, and had a crash course in ensemble playing, sight-reading, rehearsal geography ("upbeat to 5 before figure A" seems easy now...) and following a conductor. Stage VI: You're Shit And You Know You Are.

I practised obsessively. I refused to visit people for a weekend without bringing my trombone (now an 88H). I was very serious about improving. Too serious. I listened to a lot of my then-hero Christian Lindberg - himself a latecomer to trombone if not to music - with the earnest objective of getting as good as him. Yes, I really believed I would one day be able to play something as insane as Winter on a trombone. Within a year of starting, I was practising some serious solo repertoire (Ferdinand David, Saint-Saens, Hindemith!), oblivious to how horridly unmusical it was, even if I could play most of the notes. Stage VII: Inflated View Of Competence.

This balloon was rightly burst by a new teacher (now co-principal of the LSO, incidentally). I was forced to accept that I was still bad, just a different colour of bad. Self-loathing and embarrassment returned, never to go away fully. Fast-forward a couple of years, and we reach another nadir. Following an orchestra rehearsal at which I'd played very badly and was upset, I got a much-needed arse-kicking from my now-fiancée. She pointed out how little I enjoyed playing, and how unhappy it made me. Did I want to give up? Absolutely not. Then I would have to learn to enjoy it. I was in Stage VIII: Paralysed By Fear.

How did you get here from there, Mr Shepard? What did you have to go through?

No musical instrument can be played well by anyone who fears how it will sound. Brass doubly so - flaws in one-to-a-part fortissimo are blatantly obvious, and this does not lend itself to introspection. Anything less than total commitment will inevitably lead to split notes, wrong notes or wobbly notes at worst, poor ensemble balance or OK-but-uninspiring at best. I had to learn how to play without fear, and to do that I had to have fun in the process.

This took six years.

I deliberately stopped practising, playing only in ensembles. I forced myself to laugh off any obvious errors. I revised my goal down to the more realistic one of being a competent amateur player who is fixed to play for people. Sometimes (at the suggestion of the only sentence of The Inner Game of Music that was any use) I would wear ridiculous comedy underwear for concerts, because already feeling ridiculous freed me from fear of appearing so to others. Inch by inch I hacked my own mindset towards a healthier one, and my playing improved beyond recognition as a result. Stage IX: Enjoyment And Occasional Competence.

So we come to the present. I play regularly for two local orchestras, respectively OK and OKish in standard. Playing first trombone in The Planets was an extraordinarily satisfying experience, a dissonance that took 8 years to resolve. I've played as a guest for most of the other local ensembles, ranging from terrible to semi-pro standard and - crucially - am still on the fixing list. Probably, and justifiably, somewhere near the bottom, but good enough to invite back if needed. This means a very great deal to me.

Am I any good? I try to keep a realistic view of this. I've sat in sections with pro and semi-pro players and, if I did myself justice, made a positive contribution to the section and not looked out of place. In the lesser ensembles, I think and hope I stand out as a strong player. My solo playing is still dodgy, and to be honest I'm still too afraid of it to have a chance of being any good. There is a lot to improve upon, especially since I switched to bass (great fun, easier to play badly but harder to play well - Oh, 50B clone btw). One day I hope to be good enough to sit in the same good ensembles and actually be as good as the players next to me, rather than merely keeping up with them, but the learning curve is exponential and each jump forward is ten times further than the last - so I may never get there.

Begininning as an adult, by far the hardest battles have been fought inside my head, and the technical progress has happened almost as a side-effect. I've had to effect fundamental shifts in my attitude, and how I feel when I'm playing. I cannot express how torturously difficult this is. Embarrassment and fear of embarrassment have been my constant, unwelcome companions. They are still there, but sometimes I don't listen - you can't get from 'timid and poor' to 'confident and good' without going through 'confident and poor'.

My last two concerts sum this up nicely. The first, Tchaik 4 - a really plum and challenging bass trombone part, for the OKish orchestra. During the concert I was utterly fearless, committed to the music and thoroughly enjoying myself. I am immensely proud of how I sounded, which was, I believe, firm evidence that I can press on to become a properly good musician. The next day, the second, Brahms 1 - a short and moderate bass part for an excellent orchestra. Afraid of playing badly, I played badly and did not sound like I deserved to be there, even though I did. I was unrecognisable from the previous evening, and firmly in Stage X: Jekyll And Hyde.

I know of nobody else who has got this far from a similar starting point as mine, though I'm sure they're out there and I'd love to meet them. Even accepting my manifest flaws as a player, getting here has been no small achievement.

It's frustrating to be unable to play my best when it matters, but this is just the next problem to overcome, the next hill to climb. Probably another few years' worth, but nobody said this would be easy.

Monday, 24 January 2011

Bang Goes The Scansion

This is a post about song-writing, and the Divine Comedy (Hannon, not Dante). It's been simmering since the latest album was released in May, and has come to the boil as I work my way through the book Finishing The Hat - specifically the sections commenting on the work of other (dead) lyricists, which I'm shamelessly going to imitate, and so highlight a series of distinct songwriters' sins. I should emphasise that I'm not setting myself up as being a 'better' lyricist (whatever that means) than he; from the point of view of a writing blog it makes sense to learn from those one admires, both from their strengths and from their shortcomings.

Hannon's work has got me through many a dull work day and will continue to do so. I love the lush orchestral sound lent by Jobi Talbot, sitting beautifully with Hannon's consitently inventive and often touching lyrics. However much I enjoy his work, I contend that he is sloppy and technically-limited (or -disinterested) as a lyricist.

By technique I mean the craft of choosing words to fit into the rhyming and rhythmical structure of the song, done in such a way as to match natural speech patterns (without putting the emPHAsis on THE wrong sylLAble), and not intruding on what the song is saying. To take extreme examples, contrast Cole Porter's You're The Top - an ostentatious display of technical brilliance - with Alicia Keys's Empire State of Mind - a study in broken scansion (and an 'of' that has no right to exist).

Bang Goes The Knighthood is, to my ears, a very irritating album. The scansion is consistently very poor; by the time we reach the title song it is already grating on my nerves, and I'm afraid I cannot truly enjoy the album because of it. However, I don't intend to pick it apart - though one easily can - save to mention that the carelessness of its author can be summarised in two words "Frank LamPARD".

No, it's much more interesting to take several of my favourite songs, and pick them apart instead. All of his work has scansion problems, but Bang was the point where it went from a tolerable imperfection to a real annoyance. You may think me pedantic for this, but my whole point is that otherwise excellent songs don't hold up to close scrutiny.

We'll kick off with my favourite: Our Mutual Friend. It tells a rich and interesting story, at times touching, and has a tension running through it, paying off at the last line. This is a very strong and effective structure. Look a little closer, though, and cracks appear. Read the first couple of lines as though you were speaking them:

No matter how I try
I just can't get her out of my mind.

You probably put the emphasis on ma-, how, try, can't, out, mind. Hannon's setting emphasises ma-, try, just, get, out, my.
The effect is to make the lyric sound forced and unnatural. Furthermore, if I were reading it aloud, the 'peak' of the phrase would be "can't", but the setting lands it on "my". Contrast with:

Then privately we danced
But couldn't seem to keep our balance.

Here the lyric sounds natural, because the ebb and flow of the lyric and melody match that of how it would be spoken. The song, sadly, is littered with other examples of the same problem. The song tells a story, but there are holes in that, too. "We all went back to his place" is followed by the (lovely) sequence of the couple being alone, but it's never explained where everyone else went. Credibility is stretched by the girlfriend having presumably been so drunk as to fall unconscious, but not so hung-over to resist shagging someone else first thing in the morning; it's told through his eyes, so I suppose he could have misinterpreted her. He also doesn't seem to blame her for the incident.

On to Lady Of A Certain Age. This is a poignant vignette of a whole life, again with a last-line pay-off, this time from a refrain. I'll leave the scansion problems as 'an exercise for the reader' as I don't want to repeat myself, but there are a couple of other comments to make:

You chased the sun around the Cote D'Azure
Until the light of youth became obscure.
And left you all alone and in the shade
An English lady of a certain age.

The second of these lines is a weak lyric; it sounds like it's quoting a cliche, but it isn't. Anyway, light doesn't become obscure, it is obscured - the line exists only because it rhymes with D'Azure. Did the light of youth leave her all alone? Sloppy use of language. Shade/age is a pretty weak rhyme, at that, especially for the main idea of the song.

The biggest sin, at least in the recording on Spotify, comes in the payoff. The whole song is in the second person, as though sung to the subject. The "nice young man" who buys drinks is referred to as "he" in verses one and two, but in the otherwise fine climactic payoff, the subject abruptly switches to:

And you'd say "No, you couldn't be"

This is probably a slip of the tongue, but whatever the reason it's unforgivable.

Now Jiggery Pokery, from the cricket-themed album Duckworth-Lewis Method. Very much in the tradition of English light comic songs, it tells the story of the so-called ball of the century bowled by Shane Warne to Mike Gatting. I once attempted an inebriated rendition of this after a dinner-party, in full cricket gear (plus pillow up the shirt), to a non-cricket-literate audience, with predictable consequences. It's a fun, and funny, song about a subject dear to me. Dubious scansion and rhyme (Trafford/Athers - really?) aside, there are still problems. First, the language doesn't ring true:

But such was its rotation that it swerved out to the right.

Nobody ever describes cricket deliveries in terms of right and left, it is invariably in terms of the batsman's off or leg/on side. At any rate, from Gatting's point of view (as is the entire song), it swerved left...

Second is a structural problem. As with the previous examples, we have a last-line payoff. Anyone familiar with the incident knows it was Shane Warne's big moment, and mention of him is (rightly) saved for the climax:

I might as well have been holding a cob of corn.
Jiggery Pokery, who was this nobody making me look so forlorn?
I hate Shane Warne!

Yet the equivalent parts of the preceding verses are all -oon rhymes:

I might as well have been holding a contrabassoon.
Jiggery Pokery, who was this nobody making me look a buffoon?
Like a blithering old buffoon.

I might as well have been holding a child's balloon.
Jiggery Pokery, who was this nobody making me look a bufoon?
Like an accident-prone baboon.

It would have been far more effective to have them all be -orn rhymes, building tension to the Warne payoff. I had a stab at this, within the existing structure, and couldn't get anything which was better than OK and not flawed in some other way. Within this structure there aren't many useful rhymes, and I suspect Hannon tried this before settling as he did. Personally, I'd have restructured once I realised I couldn't do -orn effectively - maybe to make room for something like "wish I had never been born"; songwriting is like a sudoku puzzle with a blank page, where you have to figure out the grid shape yourself, and you have between 0 and 100,000 possible entries for each box. Blind alleys are inevitable, and I argue that this is one.

Worth mentioning is also Don't Look Down, which has the interesting lyric:

The wind that’s blown us dies a quick and painless death
The air gets clammy and we hold each other’s breath

"We hold each other's breath" is a gloriously evocative and economical lyric, and a real favourite of mine. Pity then that "the air gets clammy" is little more than padding, and 'quick and painless death' is a cliche padding out the previous line. A good example of a great payoff with a poor setup. Also "disgraceful or distasteful or distilled" is an admirably inventive bit of alliteration.

I think that's more than enough! To sum up, I'll continue to listen to, admire, and enjoy the Divine Comedy, and I look forward to his/their next offering, warts and all.

Always to thine own self be true
Not to fools like me
Who change their minds
For the sake of rhyming schemes.

Monday, 17 January 2011

Why I Hate Writing (but still do it)

Yesterday I came to the conclusion - not for the first time - that I hate writing. It's so bloody hard. Not all writing, though. Non-fiction I-want-to-tell-you-about-this writing is something I find easy, and I can usually throw together something communicative and reasonably-well-structured very quickly. This blog post, for instance, is a quick lunch-hour job, and I'm eating a bowl of soup in between sentences. (That is, one bowl eaten piecemeal, not a whole bowl each sentence). Writing my PhD was easy, and, without wishing to sound immodest, it was rather better written than most (much to the pleasant and vocal surprise of my examiners). The little pastiches and parodies which make it onto this blog are generally vomited onto a page in one easy go. I wrote a 15-minute parlour opera libretto (deliberately without metre or rhyme) in little more than an hour. It just comes out of my head fully-formed. Why, then, have both of my major projects been such torture?

With Guilds I put this down to writing in strict meter, (almost) insisting on perfect scansion, and not settling for anything less than perfect rhymes. Absent any storytelling or audience experience, this is a tremendous technical challenge which a number of songwriters whom I respect don't even attempt (I have a blog post in mind about this, so no more detail here). Writing songs in this manner is, by necessity, very slow, and requires the laborious making of a lot of lists of e.g. appropriate rhymes (even Sondheim hates this bit). I resolved that my next project would not tie me (kangaroo) down in this manner.

So to Upbeat. I have just had a weekend largely free of distractions, a sizeable portion of which I spent writing. Total output: about 2,200 words. Is there any wonder this novel is nowhere near completion over 2 years since I started? If easy writing is like vomiting, then this is akin to giving birth to bricks. It's good stuff. I like what I'm writing, and it is increasingly full of nuance and subtle character interactions. Yet I find it so hard to write - my mind wanders off into distant parts of the narrative, worrying how each sentence will fit in to the whole. I question every word, every choice of syntax, every punctuation mark. I lose concentration - a lot. In short, it takes fucking ages.

Why bother? Reading yesterday's output, or especially the day before's (which has probably had a brief edit by now), is a joy - assuming that it's any good, of course.

I hate writing, but I love having written.

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Ham and Spamalot

We went to see the touring production of Spamalot at the weekend. We never got around to seeing the West End production, so against our better judgement we went to see the offerings put forth for us lowly provincials. This is a writing blog, so i'm not going to comment at length on the production itself, save to say that the inevitably smaller budget and scale quite obviously detracted from the string of big production numbers which flesh out the show, and that some of the cast weren't quite up to it.

So to the writing. I grew up with Monty Python, and can contribute worthily to any (mercifully rare) Python recital (Obligatory xkcd). I was open to the idea of the material being worked into a musical, and interested to see how the writer integrated the recycled/reworked material into the show. I'd listened to the soundtrack and knew roughly what to expect, and was content to compensate for the smaller production.

The show is basically chunks of Holy Grail floating in a puddle of Broadway parody and self-parody, with only token attempts made to integrate the two. For the former, I had a very similar sense to when I saw Tomfoolery done by Kit & the Widow - excellent and well-loved material done slightly less well than the original, with occasional sparks of the performers finding a new effect within it. For the latter, Forbidden Broadway have already torn The Song That Goes Like This to shreds (Spotify link), and I saw little originality in the other numbers. True, it is the nature of parody to imitate, but Diva's Lament was done in 1896 by Gilbert & Sullivan (The Grand Duke), and it was just as incongruous and ineffective then. You won't succeed in showbiz (a UK rework of You won't succeed on Broadway [if you don't have any Jews]) was funny, but it was little more than a string of cheap X-Factor references, leaving rather a sense of playing to the lowest common denominator.

There was little in the way of plot or character development (admittedly true also of the film). A few attempts at pathos are stitched into Act 2 (I'm all alone, and the inevitable Always Look on the Bright Side), but could have been cut altogether without affecting the "journey" of the characters, for the simple reason that they were the journey. Nothing happened outside the numbers, worthy though they were, to suggest that they fitted into the show.

So what are left with? Some funny and silly sketches (mostly familiar to most of the audience) knitted together with big-spectacle production numbers, lowbrow topical gags, camp humour, explicit crossing of the fourth wall, a cringeworthy scene of an audience member dragged on stage, scripted corpsing, and a sing-a-long at the end. Spamalot is a pantomime. An enjoyable one, to be sure, but little more sophisticated than the average Puss in Boots. It sends itself up without ever parodying anything which hasn't been done a dozen times before. Watching it was like eating a fondant fancy; sweet, colourful, and ultimately unsatisfying.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Wildely Inappropriate

(I had a hankering for attempting an Oscar Wilde pastiche, and having a stab at his particular style of densely-packed paradox. Today's government spending review seemed an interesting setting. It's not exactly Wilde quality, but I threw this together on a coach in a couple of hours, so one can't expect miracles. A fun project. Like Henry Wotton, views expressed are not necessarily my own, or indeed anybody's.)

WILDELY INAPPROPRIATE
A Spending Review Pastiche

"Ah, David, so good of you to drop by. Can I offer you a drink?"
"Delighted to. One should never engage in a conversation about money if one is sober enough to understand it." With that he flung himself into a wing-backed armchair and took out his cigarette case.
"Whisky or brandy?" said George, and spun the top half of the globe-shaped drinks cabinet.
"I always suspected it: your model world revolves around alcohol", said David as George's globe clicked open to reveal a cluster of expensive bottles. "He who drinks whisky never wants to taste anything else. He who drinks brandy never can."
They clinked glasses, and George sat in the opposite armchair.
"This plan of yours, is it colourful?" said David.
"Colour is unique to the beholder. I cannot look at the bleak hues of this Talisker or the sanguine of this chair and be sure that you see the same. There are as many shades of purple as there are eyes, and in that sense my plan is to the Harlequin as he to the chessboard."
"Capital. Anything which is bad for the public should be colourful so they don't notice how bad it is. Anything which is good for them should be dreary so they don't notice it at all."
"I saw your speech about the armed forces. Very courageous", said George.
"Courage is the triumph of the necessary over the unpleasant. A soldier knows nothing of pleasantness, and forgets everything of necessity. He is the perfect citizen."
"Two aircraft carriers?"
"A strong navy is the envy of its enemies. A stronger one doesn't have any. We shall fill our carriers with American stealth aircraft, which are like thieves. A thief sneaks up on you and empties your wallet; an American aircraft empties your wallet so you can sneak up on everyone else. Enough of this - if a military doesn't shoot you to death, it bores you to death. That is its distinguishing characteristic. Tell me of of your budget plan."
"Well," said George, "my plan is a thing of rare beauty, which is to say that its beauty is scarce within it, but the whole is the more beautiful for it. I cannot abide things which are beautiful throughout, the perpetual ravages of sensual bliss cloy in my eyes. No, the most beautiful gallery is one with a handful of beautiful paintings among a multitude of mediocre ones; that way they have a crowd to stand above, and a darkness to shine from. My budget is minutely crafted on these aesthetic principles. It is beautiful only because of its studied lack of beauty."
"What, then, is its ugliest painting?" said David, extinguishing his cigarette and leaving it smouldering in the ashtray.
"I had no choice but to cut half a million jobs from the public sector."
"I wouldn't worry about that. A public sector worker has a job for life, and has no life at all. I would trust my life to any of them, but I don't have one either, so I instead trust them with my job. A nation shouldn't make work for idle hands, that is the devil's job, and he alone will never be unemployed." David spun his wedding-ring around on its finger.
"The funding to the police has been cut."
"Any nation which needs a police force doesn't deserve one."
"We will abolish dozens of quangos" said George, refilling their glasses.
"We cannot make up our minds whether we have quangos, but we have them to help us make up our minds. A quango should know everything and say nothing, while the government says everything and knows nothing. As soon as they know everything, they must be destroyed. They are the notebooks of a nation; to be written on, then written off. What of the BBC?"
"The BBC is a true work of art, and every other broadcaster in the world fills out the gallery from which it shines. I worship its beauty, and like any worshipper I sully it by my very worship. It is the priest who sullies his religion, the bishop doubly so; thus my worship of the BBC must inevitably destroy it, and its burning embers may I in time douse with my tears." George stared at the lavish wallpaper opposite. "Such a pity."
"And the other home nations?"
"Affected equally."
"Good. England is a nation crippled by its superiority. Wales invented its superiority, Scotland's inferiority is its strength, and both halves of Northern Ireland are inferior to each other. The result is a Britain possessing an inferiority superior to all other nations." David emptied his glass.
"The crowning beauty was that I cut less than the other side said they would." said George.
"I've a very poor opinion of a Chancellor who can't give you nothing and make you thank him for the privilege".

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Pollution and your World

Been a while since last post, here is a short thought.

When writing a long-running series, there's a fine balance to strike between stagnation and pollution. By this I mean that a 30-book series, or a 7-season TV show, can go a bit stale if nothing changes from one episode to another. There's not a lot of world you can explore in 30 books that you can't in 20, at least without sacrificing some coherence. One the flip-side of this is allowing things to change too much, and to lose that thing which made them interesting in the first place.

I have two examples of this. 1) Dwarfs in Discworld, 2) Ferengi in Star Trek Deep Space 9.

The dwarfs have always had a strong 'racial' identity. Short, bearded, iron helmet, axes, apparent genderlessness. This makes them interesting, and TP has explored the mismatch between their culture and "ours" (or his version of it) to great effect. Part of this exploration took place through the development of Cheery into Cheri (i.e. an openly-female dwarf), and there were some funny scenes along the way (Cheri in ball-gown with sequinned axe in Fifth Elephant springs to mind). Alas, in Unseen Academicals we see the solo renegade become but a puff within winds of change blowing through mainstream dwarf society.

This, for me, killed the dwarfs as a point of interest.

Suddenly they aren't a unique race any more, but rather are morphing into versions of 'normal' humans. Suddenly, the differences which defined them and made them interesting are being discarded, and with it any dramatic interest in them.

DS9 made the same mistake with the Ferengi. For Cheri read Quark and his family. For sympathetic leader (Low King) read The Nagus. For open gender read loss of obsessive capitalism, and, yes, measures of gender equality (incidentally, for 'gold' read 'latinum' and the races don't look so different). Quark was an interesting character, and the Ferengi an interesting race precisely because they are so different from us. The Ferengi went on to lose all credibility by turning into poor copies of humans, and with it the world they inhabited became polluted.

These examples are from long-running series, but the grander scale serves only to amplify a point which applies to all writing - let your characters develop, but not so much that they cease to be what defined them in the first place. Don't let Wooster get married. Don't let Elizabeth become soppy. Don't let Frankenstein's monster join the Reform Club.

Monday, 31 May 2010

The cake is a lie - Thoughts on Portal, and on Art

A recent promotion made the game Portal available free of charge for a short time. Having heard favourably of, but never played, it I jumped at the chance of downloading it. My days as a hardcore gamer are some years behind me, but I still enjoy the occasional dabble. Most games are derivative and witless, but occasionally a nugget, pure, perfect and wonderful to behold, emerges from the often-cynical and commercial computer games industry.

Portal is a puzzle game, built on the first-person perspective engine used in Half Life 2. There is no combat and no (moving) antagonists as is usually the case with shooters, but the well-polished game engine is used instead as the stage for the big idea of the game. This idea is simple, elegant, and original. The player's only tool is a gun which fires two of the eponymous portals at walls, floors, ceilings, or other flat surfaces. The player can then walk/jump/fall into one portal and emerge from the other. On this simple premise are built a series of puzzles where the player must navigate around the level using a combination of walking and portals, manipulating boxes, switches and so on, using the gun in ever more cunning ways. The puzzles are challenging without being overly difficult, and are very rewarding to solve.

The relevance of this to an ostensible writing blog is as a model for manipulating user/audience experience - to my mind the central tenet of good writing. Portal does this superbly; the learning curve is very carefully plotted, and through the majority of the game the player is being trained in the various uses of the portal gun, and on how to react to the stimuli they are carefully fed. The developers' commentary is a study in usability and usability testing, and it is fascinating to see all the subtle touches they added to the game to make the player behave as they were intended to. They have painstakingly identified the ways in which players misunderstood their environment or the correct path through it, and manipulated that environment to avoid this, making sure a player will only ever spend time on the puzzle and not get stuck on irrelevances. I completed it in 3 hours without feeling that they'd lost control of me, but at all times feeling that I was in control of my own destiny - this is a very difficult balance to strike, and they got it bang on.

If forced to define art in its broadest sense I would opt for something approximate to "a work created to lead its audience along a path of thoughts and emotions". However nebulous or individual may that path be, the creator contrives his/her work so as to provide it. Art, to my mind, is inherently centred on the audience and their journeys along its myriad paths. Without an intended audience, the never-to-be-read book or the unseen painting is little more than a complicated form of masturbation on the part of its creator. There is nothing wrong with this - creating things for the sake of creating them can be immensely pleasurable - but a work lacking even a tacit acknowledgement of its audience is completely missing the point of art. It is also likely to be very poor (as I've written before, Bletchley Park falls into this pit).

I try to approach writing by planning the path which the audience will take, and then laying down the words/direction/notes in such a way as to manipulate the audience along that path. Portal is a first-class example of this approach, and anyone with ambitions towards any form of art can learn from their sure-handed hold on their audience.

On top of the puzzles, Portal features a computer voice which manipulates the player on several levels. Firstly, it issues explicit instructions to help train the player. Secondly, it drops apparently throw-away comments which, nevertheless, nudge the player in the correct direction. Thirdly, it makes transparent and naive attempts to manipulate the player's emotions, and lies outrageously to the player. A prime example is the now-famous cake which is often offered to the user as a reward for solving puzzles, but such a way as makes it obvious from the outset that there is no such cake. It still made me want to solve the puzzles! I knew it was manipulating me in this way, but it was so brilliantly and entertainingly done that I wanted it to keep manipulating me - this game made being explicitly manipulated into part of the path that it manipulated us along. I cannot begin to express my admiration for the game's designers for this tour de force of an audience experience. Portal is truly a work of art.

As the closing song (!) put it: This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: huge success.

Friday, 19 February 2010

Bletchley Park - a disappointment wrapped in Enigma.

We visited Bletchley Park yesterday. At the risk of diluting the purpose of this blog further than its already-homeopathic levels, here are a few thoughts.

My interest in BP, as they style themselves, was first piqued by the film Enigma, and from there to the book on which it was based (Robert Harris is now among my favourite authors). The Enigma code and its solution fascinated me, and its wider strategic context and influence equally so. I spent seven years at university studying maths of various kinds, and am a professional software engineer, so it is perhaps hardly surprising that I had invested time in understanding the rudiments of Enigma and the admirable cracking of it. I felt I was more clued-up than most BP visitors, but was hopeful of having some gaps in my understanding filled in.

Enigma is clearly BP's prime asset as an attraction. How then did they treat it? Pretty badly, to be frank. Little fragments of the story of its significance were dotted around the museum building almost at random, and mostly repeated each other. The main display pedestal for an original machine was empty. Little attempt was made to explain what it was and how the machine worked. About five separate places were the 'menus' for the 'bombes' (basically this is a script produced by a human cryptographer to feed to their proto-computers to crack that day's Enigma settings) explained. None of these explanations was, to my eye, comprehensible or interesting to an intelligent layman. I'm certain I didn't understand everything they were trying to say, and I was making a real effort - without wishing to sound arrogant, if I didn't, who would? We saw a reconstructed bombe, with only vague explanation as to how it actually helped to crack codes. Given the meagre summit of my education on which I now stand, this should have been an exhilarating view, but alas it was no more exciting than a big box with wires dangling out. I would dearly have loved to understand what this magnificent creation did, how, and why. Alas, I must rely on wikipedia.

On a broader level, BP is as much a museum to Enigma as it is to how museums were in the 1970s. Dated, dilapidated, disjointed, disorganised, disinteresting. I realise they are having funding problems, but that doesn't explain why what they already have is so carelessly and inadequately written. I've already mentioned repetition, but in one section we noticed two of their different printed text boards having exactly the same paragraphs of text, with different pictures. They were right next to each other. This is plainly sloppy and amateurish, however small the budget. There was a passage thrown at random about the war with Japan, with a very oblique reference to their having a nuclear weapons program, which was not expanded on or referred to at all. This would have been fascinating! In the middle of a floor about mostly cryptography and amateur radio listening stations (not a subject I understand in depth, or have any desire to), was a large collection of WW2 toys slapped in at random. After a while we gave up worrying whether we'd taken a wrong turn and missed the intended flow, because it was apparent that that was no such thing.

The museum shut promptly at 4pm, which we sadly weren't aware of, so we missed Hut 8. This is where the events in the film/book centre around - the battle of the Atlantic - and I was hoping they would give us some much-needed wider context, and most importantly a good story about Enigma. I doubt we'll bother to go back and fill in this gap. Our tour of the museum of computers was likewise curtailed. We saw the first genuine computer, with a total absence of explanation about how it worked, what it did, and what the lighted displays on it meant. I did enjoy their working BBC Micro - partly watching a 10-year old girl have no idea what to do with a command prompt, and partly by the nostalgia of entering the classic 10 PRINT "Karen smells "; 20 GOTO 10 program. Somehow I remembered that the semi-colon drops the carriage-return from the output - don't ask me why.

Credit where it is due, the BP story is an important one and deserves to be told. There is a lot of voluteerism happening there, and credit to them for giving up their time to this worthy cause. Any major building work would destroy the character of the war-time 'huts', and would be to its detriment. These comments on the museum should in no way detract from the awe and admiration I have for those who worked here during the war, and their unquestionably glorious achievements.

Despite my continued enthusiasm in the subject matter, on the whole my feelings are those of disappointment. To tie this back into my writing blog, my view that in any creation for an audience you must at once see the work from their point of view, and manipulate what you present to them so they go through the experience you want them to. Fail to do that and you are giving them what you want to give them instead of what you want them to have - and BP is proof of how big that gap is.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Sherlock Holmes vs Derren Brown

(Have been meaning to write a Holmes pastiche for some time, and last night's Derren Brown broadcast gave a perfect opportunity. The deductions are my own, and may yet prove to be spectacularly inaccurate. Forgive the leaden prose (an imitation of Conan-Doyle), the obvious incongruities of eras, and the fact that I've rushed this off in an hour after work.)

In the years following my marriage, my growing medical practice kept me from pursuing the intimate friendship which I shared with Mr Sherlock Holmes as often as I would have liked. Holmes, however, never lost time in summoning me if there was a case in which he required my assistance, or which presented features of peculiar interest. He was often engaged in several matters at any given time, and it was my good fortune to accompany him when two cases of notoriety coincided. The first is far too sensational, given its illustrious protagonists, to be placed before the public. The second was but punctuation to the larger matter at hand, but it demonstrated the remarkable powers of my friend to disengage himself from one weighty problem to consider another, and his remarkable quickness of thought and deed. He never reached higher than when pitched against an adversary with faculties similar to his own.
We were seated in the Baker Street rooms which I had once shared with him, taking some of Mrs Hudson's excellent ham and eggs to recuperate from an energetic afternoon. The page-boy brought in a tray, and presented Holmes with a telegram.

"Hulloa! Watson, it seems our brief respite is to be interrupted with another demand upon our time. I have here a missive from a Mrs McGhee, saying only 'Must consult with you at once, have an urgent matter of the most extraordinary kind'."

"Sounds promising." said I.

"Indeed, though I hope the distraction is brief. Hark! If I am not much mistaken that is her step upon the stair."

Our flustered correspondent was shown to an armchair. Holmes had a gift with the fairer sex, though he seldom saw fit to use it, and immediately put our client at her ease.

"Watson, fetch this lady some brandy, it is a cold day and the fast drive from the theatre has taken its toll."

"Good gracious! How did you know I had come from the theatre?" said out astonished client.

"Simplicity itself. Though you are not made up for the stage, there is a mark on the underside of your right sleeve which could only be left by inadvertent contact with the rim of a pot of grease-paint. Clearly you reached over it in a hurry before leaving the dressing room. But you are not here to discuss such trifles."

"No, sir. My husband is a proud man, and he is in a pretty mess, though he won't admit it. Without your help he will walk proudly to his own humiliation. He is a conjurer of some repute, and I his assistant. He has foolishly challenged in public one of his peers, that he could explain any trick his rival would care to perform. Last night there was performed a marvellous trick which my husband is at a loss to explain, yet he is billed all over the metropolis to go before the public tomorrow to explain how it was done. He is a beaten man! I beg you, please help him."

"Can you describe to me the trick?" said Holmes, offhandedly. To one who knew him as I did, he clearly had no interest in the plight of this unfortunate woman.

"I can do better than that, Mr Holmes." With that, she produced from her bag one of the modern moving picture books which were so popular at that time. "Here is the performance itself. I must have seen it a hundred times, but it is as nonsense to me."

I cannot, alas, do justice to the performance on these pages, but I refer my readers to the moving picture archives, where the performance we saw is recorded. Out client's rival claimed to be able to predict the results of a lottery draw, and gave his performance simultaneously with the draw taking place. He had some small white balls on a stand next to the screen, on which his prediction lay hidden, and both he and the stand were visible throughout, yet he went nowhere near them until he revealed that he had predicted correctly. During the recorded performance, Holmes lost his offhandedness and watched the pictures with intense interest.

"Capital! This is a most singular case." said Holmes.

"Can you help my husband?"

"Indeed, but I will do no more than help. His rival is more skilled than he, but not so much that we cannot see through his smoke-screen at once." Holmes then reached for his telegraph pad, scribbled off two notes, and rang for the page-boy.

"Madam, this note is for your husband. It gives him a nudge in the right direction, and if he cannot piece together the remainder himself then he deserves his humiliation." The other note he handed to the boy, who showed our grateful client to the door on his way to the telegraph office. He then sat in silent meditation, from which I well knew it was folly to rouse him.
That evening, while Holmes and I were indulging in a smoke, a gentleman was introduced into the study. He was a tall man, dressed in a frock-coat of a remarkable purple hue, and he clutched the summons which Holmes he sent him. He and Holmes stared at each other for a moment, as might gladiators eying their opponents in combat.

"Have a seat, Brown. May I congratulate you on your recent escapades." Our guest nodded his thanks. "I fear you may may yet win your wager with your rival, though had you staked against me you would not be so fortunate. Let me tell you how your trick was done, and do you tell me if I go wrong.

"The key facts in this are as follows: One, there are two cameras, yet the further of the two is seen only at the beginning. Suggestive, but not conclusive. Two, the closer camera is constantly moving a little at random. Three, you stand extremely still and silent for some seconds during the draw itself, yet are for the rest of the time most particularly agitated. Four, your narration of the broadcast, while excellent, is not quite exactly in time with the image.

"From these facts, and with a little knowledge of the tricks of the moving picture trade, the solution is obvious. The wide camera shows that there are no other objects near you at the beginning of the trick, yet there is no such revelation after it. After this shot, an accomplice moves in extra equipment. I have no doubt that the more distant camera will be used to show this addition taking place. You provide yourself with a screen showing the lottery broadcast at the right time, and it is placed so that it is almost behind the screen which we can see. Thus, you can look at your private screen while appearing to look at ours. The image on our screen is several seconds behind, but you appear to give a narrative based on what we see; it was in fact a narrative on what you saw several seconds previously, hence the imperfection of timing.

"The screen we see is clearly real, because at the beginning we can see your reflection in it. Yet the image it shows, at least for some of the trick, is a plain blue or green screen, which your engineers can use to overlay a moving image of the lottery. One notes that there are no primary colours in the shot which might interfere with such a process, which I believe is called 'super-imposition', save the fire-exit sign. The reflection on the floor is outside the picture.

"You stand still as you see the numbers being announced, a few seconds before we do. Your engineers freeze this shot, but continue to impose the moving image onto this still of you watching it. That the camera appears to have been jittering throughout your meretricious broadcast serves to disguise your unnatural stillness, and could easily have been achieved not by a tremulous photographer, but added on by your engineers. Behind this frozen image you are free to move to the stand, and set balls with the correct numbers upon it with ease, without fear of your amazed audience seeing you move. Having done so, you resume the exact pose which you held before, the image is unfrozen - just before we see the last lottery ball being selected, but just after you did - and you can triumphantly reveal your success.

"Do I have it about right?"

It was clear from the thunderous expression on our guest's face that he had.

"May I compliment you on a splendidly executed illusion, and note that your task of providing it is far more difficult than mine of seeing through it." said Holmes.

On that, our guest bowed, and passed silently from the room.

"Come, Watson, place your revolver in your pocket. We have more dangerous matters to attend to tonight."

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Another half-developed idea

Have all but abandoned writing for the time being, spending my free hours on other pursuits. But still thinking. Am still on the hunt for a killer idea for my next show, trying to keep the elements which worked in Guilds but still be similarly original.

A setting some 1000 years into the future (carefully avoiding anything approaching science fiction!), where the prevailing religion of the time is based around, say, the Harry Potter books, in much the same way that Christianity is based around the gospels. Blissfully ignorant of the context in which the books were written, they believe in the literal truth of the books, and worship Harry as a messiah. This is, to us, a blatantly silly premise, but to them it would appear as natural as, say, transubstantiation appears to a devout Christian. There is a lot of scope then for poking some gentle fun at the expense of religion (in the same way that Guilds did to politics); by using some well-known modern culture as the basis, it is obvious how much the future people have missed the point of what they have studied.

There is more than a little Life of Brian in the basic idea, but I think the execution is remote enough from it to stand alone. Care must be taken to avoid any implication that modern religions aren't true (for a given value of 'truth'), but if it makes the audience ask questions along these lines then so much the better. Regardless of one's beliefs (or lack of), religion is a fascinating subject. There are also obvious copyright issues with HP and so on, so the reference must be indirect, but no less clear.

From a plot perspective, having a bunch of robed priests (a bit like in Die Zauberfloete) arguing how many crumple-horned snorkaks can dance on the head of pin, and other such theological matters, gives plenty of opportunity for comedy. Working in various cunning machinations and plot twists would pretty easy. It would be wonderful to juxtapose this petty committee-style squabbling with it being some major ecumenical conference (like the Council of Nicaea) where even the most arbitrary decisions have a direct effect on billions of people over the following centuries.

On a slightly different tack, focusing on junior members of the order might be fun. We always hear about the Illuminati (or whatever) having some massive worldwide plot at Grand Master level, but we never see how the junior members each do their own tiny part. They don't know the greater effect and probably believing that they were acting benevolently, probably as part of their own shot at positions of fractional rank and status.

The trick here is weaving a plot of human interest and probability into the larger structure, as the emotional content has to be carried somehow.

I like this idea. Would that I had time even to complete the fulfilment of the *previous* idea...

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

Red Dwarf - Back to Earth pts II & III

Well, it tied together two of the stronger story ideas which the series/books have ever generated, threw in a scene of genuine emotional clout, and ended on a hopeful note. What could possibly go wrong? Sadly, the whole was far less than the sum of its parts, and the blame lies squarely on some lamentable writing decisions.

I'm trying hard to make these posts a balanced and well-reasoned dissection of new episodes of a much-loved show. That said, the best thing I can honestly say about the return to Earth is that it now occupies pride of place in my Jar Jar Binks Archive of Things I Pretend Never Happened. A plot line in which characters interact with their audience and their creator is a potentially interesting one, but absolutely must never be used with already-established characters, lest the magic of those characters be irretrievably destroyed. The cast and crew speak proudly of their four-walled TV sets, but their writer systematically demolished the fourth wall by having his characters abruptly aware of their own fictional existence. Self-parody is joined by recursive self-reference, fanwank in-jokes, and cheap topical gags, and the result is jarring in the extreme. Even if this were a good idea, and I cannot emphasise enough that it wasn't, the execution is poor - the plot and the pacing grind to a standstill, and the use of characters is again weak. It isn't even funny.

The golden rule of writing is "Always be true to your characters". Have them behave realistically, and within their own personality. Rimmer commits a cold-blooded murder, and nobody even reacts to it. Lister, in the space of two minutes, is in fear of his imminent death, experiences his own death, kills his creator, and yet can laugh hysterically as he repeatedly hurts Rimmer's nadgers. This would only be remotely credible if Lister were a psychopath; he isn't, and it isn't. Sorry, this is crap writing. These aren't human beings, they are the playthings of the author. Ms Hologram, having served her purpose, is unceremoniously dumped into the Darth Maul Dustbin of Undeveloped Utility Characters. She could have done so much more.

The dystopian Blade Runner angle worked really well, once you accepted the abrupt jump there from Coronation Street, and that we were previously in "real life" (no huge monoliths in Westminster last time I checked). It looked brilliant. So much more could have been done with this idea - I wish the entire Earth episode had been set there. At it was, it was an incongruous fantasy rampage shoehorned into, and with no connection to, what had been done previously. An opportunity wasted.

The scene in which the crew are in Carbug (fabulous prop, but better off in a Top Gear stunt) and "land" it as though a spaceship was witty, original, and funny. A moment's thought, however, and we notice Lister's comment about his hometown having lots of stolen cars, and Rimmer being a classic car expert (previous episode) - it's a pedantic point, but surely this undermines their necessary unfamiliarity? A more careful author would have cut out these in favour of keeping the (worthy) landing scene, to no other cost to the script.

Having endured the embarrassing tour of modern-day Britain, we are rewarded with a noticeable recovery in the end section. Lister is faced with the decision to leave his personal utopia (rework of the book version of Better Than Life) knowing that it is a fantasy. This is a really strong idea. Craig Charles shows us how much he has developed as an actor, and delivers a scene of genuine poignancy. Bravo. The Earth plot is then tied up as a fantasy (explicit Back To Reality rework) - OK, so it's a bit holey in that the others weren't experiencing their own utopia (in BTR they were all respectively in plausible hells), but we can forgive that. We have the clunkily-set-up but otherwise strong idea of Lister chasing Kochanski in hope of a reunion, leading us forward into another (?) series. Hope for them, hope for us.

Watching the Making Of episode was a revelation. There are some seriously clever technical things going on behind the scenes, and credit is due for them. The production, on the whole, was very impressive, particularly given the practical constraints they must have. There were several good ideas in the writing which deserved much more than they got; there were a few very bad ideas which got far more than they deserved. There is some genuine merit in the writing - let this not be lost sight of - but it was too clouded by its rank failings for the result to be a success, and the overall sense is one of opportunities missed. Red Dwarf has never been perfect, but in its pomp the shortcomings were papered over by the sheer joy of its inventivess, wit, and panache. Not so here.

I hope there is a further series, and I hope that it is an outstanding success. I cannot, however, look forward to it. Forgive the repetition (this is a writing blog after all!), but I hope it's better-written than Back To Earth. I can only wonder what Rob Grant (those in the know will understand the schism far better than I ever will) thinks of what his co-creation has become in his absence. Were it me, I would be upset.

Saturday, 11 April 2009

Red Dwarf - Back to Earth pt I

New Red Dwarf. Finally a chance to give closure to the story, and a happily-ever-after for these beloved characters. A chance to atone for the weak and puerile Series VIII and finish on a high. I have greatly looked forward to this!

Having been a somewhat obsessive fan as a teenager, I grew out of it and hadn't (re-)watched an episode for about ten years until I saw a few recently. Happily, they stood up to the ravages of time, and more pertinently to the mature judgement of adulthood, and of an aspiring writer. Funny, sharp, inventive, showing a great rapport between the actors. Fully deserving of its exalted place in the sit-com pantheon. This was a happy nostalgia trip indeed.

There are two more new episodes to come, tonight and tomorrow, and I really want to like them. I really wanted to like last night's episode too, and I tried hard to view it with realistic expectations. Alas, it fell short even of these.

We weren't given an explanation of how the proir cliffhanger was resolved, why the crew have disappeared, where Kochanski is, or where Holly is. It's like a reset button was pressed and Series VIII didn't happen. Fine by me! No time wasted digging our way out of old holes. The "Nine Years Previously" caption (or whatever it was) hasn't yet been tied up - a whole episode of flashback? I'm sure all this will become clear soon, but why put the caption there at all? It seems a jarring loose end.

The opening scene of dialogue between Lister and Rimmer is a strong one, and a welcome reminder of the tenor of the early series. Sneeze-ironing made me laugh aloud - a promising start indeed. Rimmer, however, quickly became annoying, and acted throughout without realistic motivations - no longer a believable (if objectionable!) character - and he dangled dangerously above the tentacled monster of self-parody.

The plot felt like it was all happening purely to give them a magic bullet to return to Earth. The leviathan (opening scenes of Back to Reality with much less panache?) appeared out of nowhere, did nothing, and then vanished again. There was no narrative tension. Ms Hologram appeared out of nowhere, had a mishandled interaction with Rimmer and an cringingly unoriginal one-character-doesn't-know-another-one-is-listening scene, and hands them the magic bullet (surprised nobody tried to sleep with her - or is this still to come?). I don't mind necessary plot elements being introduced, but they need to stand up on their own - the strings were all too visible. The show depends on our seeing things through Lister's eyes, coloured by his surprisingly-perceptive and human take on events, but he vanished from the script the moment Ms arrives. Lonliness and the hope of a return to Earth have surely been the definitive underlying tensions of Red Dwarf ever since its inception - why do we not see this in Lister now the hopes look like being realised? His reaction is absolutely pivotal! Why do we not see the social impact of a new crew-member into a hugely insular group (this was handled better in Series VII with KK's arrival)? Maybe we will tonight, but even for the first part it was a golden opportunity missed.

Much of the show has a CGI background, and it isn't seamless. I've never liked CGI skutters, and the wrestle-with-tentacles scene was poor. Shoestring special effects are part of - and almost define - Red Dwarf, but shoestring CGI seems almost dishonest. Cunning model shots feel more real, provoke a far more sympathetic response, and have a certain charm which using computers utterly lacks. The Star Wars prequels suffered badly from this too, and their budget was rather larger! Given how the show was financed, this is all forgiveable, but it makes the suspension of disbelief that bit harder.

I know nothing of the practical constraints they may have had, but not filming in front of a live audience was a mistake (though I'm glad they omitted a taped laughter track). The performance as a whole lacked its once-effortless vibrance, and the characters didn't gel together as a 'posse' like they once did - there was no sense of a group of people who were very familiar with each other and had been through so much together. This, sadly, was once a central pillar of the show's deserved success, subtle and intangible though it may be. I can imagine it being very difficult resurrecting a twenty-year-old format and immediately recapturing the old magic, but the dynamic just isn't there. Would a studio audience have helped the actors?

Red Dwarf has never had bullet-proof writing, but the earlier work stood up far better than this. Almost anything can be forgiven if the result is funny, but the aforesaid laugh-out-loud was the only one so far, and this brings the other shortcomings of the scripts into sharper relief.

I've greatly enjoyed reading Robert Llewellyn's twitter feed during the production, and it seems that I am in a minority of those disappointed with the show. I sincerely hope that it is an outstanding critical and financial success, and wish all involved nothing but the best. Given my own total anonymity there is little chance of any of them, or indeed anybody at all, reading these thoughts, which is probably for the best. I also sincerely hope that the next two episodes are an improvement upon this one - I would very much like the Red Dwarf journey to end in a happy place.

This is a writing exercise: take something which I love to bits, and figure out why its good stuff is better than its less good stuff. I still have a lot to learn as a writer, and learning from others' mistakes is as important as learning from their triumphs.

Thursday, 19 February 2009

Musing

Been a while since I posted. This blog has largely served its purpose, which frankly never involved any serious expectation of being read (which isn't to say that it being read isn't nice!). I have another idea for a blog which would, I think, have the potential to be properly popular, but I really don't have the time to develop it at present. Given the weight of things that I'm taking on, this isn't likely to happen soon.

Anyway, I heard today that a company is interested in reviving Guilds, the musical comedy I co-wrote for the Edinburgh Fringe '07. I have rather mixed feelings about this.

Reasons to go ahead:
- The show took a lot of hard work, and deserves to be seen/experienced by more people.
- We're very proud of it.
- It might cause, in a networky way, something else to happen by someone seeing it.
- Probable expectation of some nominal royalties.
- We are not famous or in-demand enough to afford pretentions like insisting that our work is performed in such a way as preserves the original intentions.
- Seeing a fresh take on the show might be very rewarding.
- Seeing it performed again might be very exciting. It was last time.
- Being among a company of people who like the show even half as much as the original cast would be tremendously rewarding.
- The central idea of the show is genuinely original and fresh, and has a lot more mileage left in it.
- Quite a nice ego-trip. Let's be honest here.
- A chance to address some of the less-than-perfect features of the show with the benefit of hindsight. New professional shows get loads of preview performances so the writers/directors can get it right before it opens. We had one chance. (Well two, actually, with the break in the middle of the Fringe run, and not all of the changes I/we made were improvements).

Reasons not to go ahead:
- It will never be as special as the first time, where the cast comprised many of my closest friends.
- The atmosphere around the original production was like nothing I've ever experienced, and any revival will never come close.
- Some of the jokes have aged and will need rewriting.
- One of the central themes was absolutely bang on the zeitgeist in summer '07. It is now way out of date, and the wrapping-up of the show will hugely suffer from it. It is too deeply woven into the plot to be replaced without a significant rewrite, and I doubt that an adequate replacement could be found.
- They won't do it "properly", no matter how good the company is (and I honestly have no idea whether or not they are). Seeing it done wrong will really annoy me. Even the original production, in which I had little direct influence, was not entirely "right" in my eyes, and that was with the composer MD'ing (with whom I shared a very close concept of the show) and a receptive director.
- What goes in the Fringe stays in the Fringe. Some shows only work there, and I think this is one of them. Would need to be a double-header at the very least.
- Seeing a new production may tarnish the memories of the original show, which are among my very happiest.

Basically, it comes down to this: is seeing a second production of the show worth the fact that it cannot possibly be as special as the first one?

I really don't know the answer to this.

Tuesday, 16 December 2008

Upbeat: I

Well, it's six months now since I started this blog. I still have a lot of novel still to write, but I feel that I'm settling nicely into the style, if not the routine of actually writing enough.

Ages of Man is dead, long live Upbeat. I still don't intend posting any more material that is destined for said book, but here I'm going to throw together a sketch to fill out back-story, and to try to develop a voice for Ellen. I recently wrote a scene from her perspective (probably the only one in the book), and realised that her character could do with a bit more development, as could my writing of her voice. This is a not-very-thought-out attempt at so doing.

---

Ellen heard the 'phone ring, and knew without looking who was calling. She didn't rush to answer it.
"Hello, mother, how lovely to - "
"Ellen, darling, how was last night? When do I get to meet him?"
"Mother! He only took me out for dinner!"
"Well I want to know everything about him. Gary, you said his name was?"
"Harry. He's a - "
"Prince Harry? Wouldn't it be wonderful if you married a Prince!"
"He's a history student, we met at - "
"Is he as handsome as Timmy was?"
"Mother!" The conversation was settling into a familiar pattern.
"I'm only asking."
"Well, yes as a matter of fact. He's quite tall, with curly blond hair. We met at a party, his flatmate is one of my old school friends. He's - "
"Good. I wish I still looked as stunning as you, then I'd find myself some dishy young man."
"Mother! Don't let daddy hear you say that, it's not nice!"
"Speaking of daddy, he's having a shoot next weekend, would Gary like to come? I'm just dying to meet him."
Conversation, such as it was, continued for a quarter of an hour. Ellen's normally endless patience generally wore thin during conversations with her mother, especially the ones about her love-life, which most of them were. To her mother it was absolutely imperative that she found a suitable match before she was too old (i.e. 22) and it was even more imperative that he be handsome, athletic, charming, and from "good stock". If Ellen actually liked him, then so much the better.

Monday, 6 October 2008

Half-formed idea

The musing following my previous post has lead me to think about why the setting is weak, and I've come to realise that this is due a lack of any narrative drive. It is simply there as a backdrop to the action.

It's occurred to me that an underlying assumption in the majority of amateur performance - be it theatre, orchestra, choir or whatever - is that people will go out of their way to see it. In reality, audiences are generally strongly biased towards friends/relatives of the performers, who will have been 'encouraged' to attend. There are exceptions of course, but if an amateur group suddenly ceased to exist, hardly anyone not involved would notice or care. This is in stark contrast to professional groups. Furthermore, the audience's appreciation is often insensitive to the quality of the performance. The performers tend to behave as if the performance were as important as for a professional group - understandable, as it is their pastime - even if the standard falls far short of that (talking the talk?). Would the performers actually like it if they got what they wished for? Would an audience of 3000 and a frank review in The Times really please an amateur group?

Bearing this in mind, I wonder if the orchestra storyline could be made to stand up on its own by turning this on its head - perhaps setting it in a world in which amateur performances share the same properties as professional ones (large audiences, reviews in major newspapers etc.), perhaps setting it in reality but having the (poor) orchestra suddenly become famous.

It's not quite right yet, but I think it's a thread worthy of more thought.